December 29, 2011

I think what we're seeing is that as Romney emerges as the winner within the GOP, his winner status makes him seem more appealing in comparison to Obama. And it's an upward spiral: The more Romney looks strong compared to Obama, the more Republicans should want him as their nominee.

194 comments:

Have you seen Romney's slogan that's sure to be on the lips of every American this year? "Believe in America." A nice sentiment but another typically bland offering from Milquetoast Mitt, who promises to be the nourishing gruel on the GOP menu.

I don't know. I still wonder how much of the Romney support is due to the Washington Republicans touting him versus what will really happen. Romney could collapse in a New York minute if he starts getting beaten and I doubt too many Republicans are being swayed by Rubin, NRO, and Coulter. I suspect, too, the liberal media is laying off Romney until after he gets the nomination, just like they did "for" McCain.

If you click through and read the whole article, though, the Romney/Obama thing has been see-sawing for months. The only significance here is the width of the gap and the fact that Obama has dipped, for the first time, into the 30's.

The more Romney looks strong compared to Obama, the more Republicans should want him as their nominee.____________

Yes, because what this is all about is "us against them," "our team against their team." Actually accomplishing anything of any substance is irrelevant so long as "our guy" wins.

So long as our guy is better than Hitler (which is all that the "he's better than Obama" argument is), we should rally around him. Doesn't matter that he is complete crap with respect to promoting conservative philosophy and values, at least he's better than Obama.

This is what passes for political analysis these days. No wonder our country is in the toilet.

The difference is in what happens after the nomination. Newt may be unpleasant to a lot of folks now, but he will be dyn-o-mite against Obama in the general. Romney? I'm much less. I'm much less confident.

Plus this from the link: Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

The only other "candidates in the race" are Republicans, so we know which way most of that 10% will break when they only have one choice. It's worrying that even if all 6% of the undecideds went for Obama he'd still lose.

But the election is still 10 months away. And this is only one poll. It makes for decent Thursday afternoon fodder, now that everyone's griping over lousy presents has subsided (and Aunt Miriam's turkey? How dry was that?), but overall it's meaningless. If Obama wins in November nobody will look back at Rasmussen's December 29th poll and wonder, "Where did it all go wrong?" Let's wait for more polls to see if this fad makes a trend.

Considering that the Freemasons were and probably still are well versed in mathematics, geometry and astronomy....and most likely can figure out what is a cut in spending versus just slowing down the rate of increase in spending.....I'm in.

"The more Romney looks strong compared to Obama, the more Republicans should want him as their nominee."What?!!???Remember the left's clever slogan in 2004: "Anybody but Bush!"I guess this is the intellectual level that Republicans have sunk to, also, if winning is the only thing.Romney is a pathetic loser (in an expensive suit) with no consistent ideology.Vote Ron Paul.

Romney wasn't my favorite GOP candidate. I considered him pretty bland, just like many others do. But the upside of "bland" is that there's no 'drama.' After all the GOP drama we've seen, I'm happy to support Mitt if it means we can leave some of that behind and get on with winning the WH.

Considering that the Freemasons were and probably still are well versed in .. my grandfather was a fremason like Franklin , Washington, Jefferson, ...he was a carpenter who made coffins for shell. he got an education with the masons. Im sitting in the chair he made with his tools. With the good money that Shell paid him he became a funerary manager . He was almost ruined by the goverment and ended living a modest, middle class life until his death. I never know about any kabal to dominate the world.And as long as I know his knowledge on those subject was more or less the average. My point, they are nothing different of the Lions, the Rotaries or the Water Buffalos

Vote Ron Paul? Can you be serious? Let's see...he's passed a single piece of legislation in his entire long career; he fills bills with his own pork and then votes against them knowing they will pass; and his foreign policy positions are suicidal. Wait, do I have this right? Israel is largely responsible for the emergence of Hamas?

With Romney, conservatives will feel put upon and be expected to defend and support things that are Obama-lite, just as Boehner (with the help of Cantor and Ryan) has pressured the Tea Party freshman to compromise their principles, go against the people who voted for them, and eat sh*t sandwiches.

The only difference between Romney and Obama is that Republicans will be expected to help out with the crash and burn of the country.

Bender said (sarcastically): Yes, because what this is all about is "us against them," "our team against their team." Actually accomplishing anything of any substance is irrelevant so long as "our guy" wins.

It actually is all irrelevant if "our guy" doesn't win. How is that even in dispute?

And Romney's not just "better than" Obama, he's a whole freaking hell of a lot better than Obama. And a heck of a lot better than several of the current GOP candidates.

Romney's not perfect by a long shot, but perfect doesn't exist and is not running. Of the options on the table, which are better than Romney? I've looked and looked, and I'm not seeing it.*

*(Maybe Perry, but he's run such a poor campaign that I would be hesitant to put my faith into him for the general.)

It is encouraging that Romney has pulled ahead of Obama by 6 points. It is sad that it is that close but that is the country we live in.

The party of the candidate is more important than the candidate. The prez is under enormous, unrelenting pressure by his own party to do as the party wants. If the prez loses the support of his own party, he is toast. Presidential policy tends to be the weighted average of his party's policy.

A candidate can do no good if he is not elected, which is why WFB said he supported the most conservative candidate who can be elected.

I'll vote for Romney, but I'm with A.Shmendrik: Once the general campaign begins, Romney will fade.

Obama has a billion dollar warchest. A billion dollars. That will buy one hell of a lot of ACORN vote-wranglers, and ads about funny underwear. Romney will have to shine during the two or maybe three debates that they'll have, in order to win.

And what will he say about one of the most important and polarizing issues of the day, Obamacare? Will he say "Yeah, me too" or "Good job, Barry"? Nominating Romney takes our biggest weapon away from us, period.

It has to be Gingrich. Once the general campaign begins, Gingrich will present a clear, articulate alternative in the debates (which are apparently so important these days that they've decimated Perry.)

An early insurmountable Romney lead means less enthusiastic conservatives can instead turn their attention to the congressional races, but still vote Mitt with some assurance that he will be pulled their way when any legislative compromise is brokered.

Vote Ron Paul? Can you be serious? Let's see...he's passed a single piece of legislation in his entire long career...It's sad when we judge our lawmakers by the sheer quantity of laws they have passed.The single best thing that could happen to this country would be if Congress gave themselves a vacation for a couple of years (after repealing Obamacare, of course).Vote Ron Paul.

@Guy: quantity isn't everything. But I generally expect a legislator to do SOME work. Aside, that is, from trumpeting his moral purity to his devotes. I'd prefer a congressman willing to get his hands a little dirty, but who actually accomplishes something.

I'm okay with Romney. Not perfect, but I'm not going to refuse to vote for a guy because he's not the second coming of Reagan (And can Republicans *please* not fall into that trap? The Democrats have wasted 50 years trying to find "the next JFK"--ridiculous).

For those of you who refuse because Romney doesn't meet your ideological requirements, fine, deal with the results. If Romney is the nominee and you don't vote for him, you are objectively supporting Obama. That's it. Abstention is as good as a vote for the other side.

And if you think you'd rather deal with 4 more years of Obama than have Romney, enjoy his Supreme Court picks for the next 25 years.

Like your guns? Better take good pictures because Eric Holder will confiscate and ship them to Sinoloa. Like higher taxes? Like working harder so you can fatten up union pensions? Fine, stay home and be a principled conservative--maybe your ideological purity will keep you warm at night, because I doubt Obama's next wave of green-graft will.

So, Gingrich can get away with saying "Hey, I was just kidding" about the times that he specifically endorsed an identical plan for the entire country?

Gingrich has all of the negatives that Romney has, and adds a built-in base of people who hate him with a firey passion, proven poor leadership and poor organization skills, and multiple moral failures. Yay.

For those of you who refuse because Romney doesn't meet your ideological requirements, fine, deal with the results. If Romney is the nominee and you don't vote for him, you are objectively supporting Obama. That's it. Abstention is as good as a vote for the other side.

Fine with me. Why the fuck should I be pushed around by the likes of you fucks again? You don't give a damn.

Ann had every indicator of what kind of president Obama would be BEFORE she voted for him - she did it anyway. Now she's pumping dick-for-brains and doing it again.

I've had it with fraud and don't see any point in participating in another one,...

Ann, every GOP candidate running in the primary is infinitely better than the persona non grata we have as a president right now. The guy has evacuated his position and status as a president. He is merely already a memory and he acts like it in everything he does. All the candidates are fabulous candidates warts and all.

Yeah, the most likely scenario is Romney. The libertarians and tea party don't have a candidate ready. It took 16 years between Goldwater and Reagan. Twenty between McGovern and Clinton. The work starts in the legislature. If there is no voting majority there the president is stuck with the veto pen. Romney won't lead a reduction in the size of the federal government, but if the votes are there in congress he might follow.

I wish someone other than Romney would be our candidate. I had hoped it would be Perry, but he turned into a buffoon once on the national state.

So, sadly, out of necessity of defeating the affirmative-action beneficiary, least-qualified and least-experienced man elected to the presidency, who is aggressively impoverishing and weaking my country, I'm reconciled to supporting Romney.

So here are my questions. Can anyone who doesn't support Romney in the Republican primary: 1)name one candidate who would be better; and 2) list three reasons, pointing to previous experience and/or history as to why they would be better than Romney; and 3) explain a real-world, realistic scenario as to how and why they capture the nomination instead of Romney; and 4) explain a real-world, realistic scenario as to how and why they capture enough swing voters in battleground states, who previously voted for Obama, to win those battleground states and thus the electoral college.

Hopes and wishes and nice speeches don't answer the question. Qualifications, experience and a realistic approach, including organization, fundraising and polling, do.

And making reference to civil war fantasies as a fallback strategy to electoral disappointments is an immediate disqualifier.

Fine with me. Why the fuck should I be pushed around by the likes of you fucks again? You don't give a damn.

You won't be pushed around by me, dumbass. You'll be pushed around by a liberal majority in the Supreme Court, by Eric Holder at DoJ, by the EPA, by the NLRB, etc. I'm just laying it out there for you.

The fact that each of the short-lived front-runners in the Republican field gained that position by presenting themselves as staunch conservatives suggests that Republican voters may have been trying to avoid having to accept Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.

Romney’s own talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again…

Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich’s personal past than in the country’s future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But, if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office…

There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Republicans vote for in the primaries. Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.

That's Thomas Sowell, who I would posit is smarter than everyone on this blog - including Ann and Meade - saying what should be all that matters to anyone who gives a damn about his/her country.

I don't care about Romney's looks, his marriage, his religion - I care we get a conservative in office who will do what needs to be done. And Romney is simply not that man. He has never been that man and the situation calls for nothing less. "Good enough" is not going to cut it this time, and everyone knows in their bones that's all Romney is.

Conservatives do not let liberals pick their candidates. Period. Anybody but Obama is a reality because Ann Althouse voted the way she did. Anybody but Romney is a reality for the same reason:

Ann is a political dead end. Pick a conservative - any conservative - and I'll walk with you.

Tim, I've been begging for a response to those questions all week! All I get is "Oh, Romney's awful and will be the end of the world!", but no one will say any plausible better alternative, unless they're supporting Gingrich (all of Romney's negatives, plus more) or Paul (no explanation needed).

@Crack Emcee: I have too much respect for the work you do for conservative principles to pick a fight with you. But I sure hope there's a way we can win you over to our side. Romney's not my ideal candidate. I like Perry, but he can't campaign at this level. I thought Cain was great, but those horses left the barn in a stampede. And Paul is a nut case. I believe Romney can win, and that he will get us back on track, domestically and internationally. He won't usher in a conservative revolution, but he wcan fix the most significant problems.

"Romney won't lead a reduction in the size of the federal government, but if the votes are there in congress he might follow."

Ever occured to the conservative purists that the reason there was never a majority Congressional vote to reduce the size of the Fed was there was never a majority of voters wanted to shrink the obese nanny Fed?

I can absolutely live with Romney. Perfect? No. Better than what we have now? 1000x - YES. And I am becoming convinced that he is going to be able to pull in a good % of independents. A colleague of mine who is an independent (but leans left) told me from the beginning that Romney is the only "R" he would consider. And being a businessman, I think he could quite probably vote for him. The other guys (and Bachmann) are too idealogical for many "I's." I think the very things that conservatives don't like about Romney are the things that will HELP him in the general election, once he gets the nomination.

I will be thrilled when the nomination process is over. "Circular firing squad" is the perfect description. I hate it.

"Ann is a political dead end. Pick a conservative - any conservative - and I'll walk with you."

Fine. Name him or her, and explain, in some real-world detail, how that person gets the nomination, how they're qualified for office, and how they get swing voters who voted for Obama in battleground states to win those battleground states.

Crack, thank you for your response. But you can't seriously believe that Gingrich is any more conservative than Romney, can you? He's supported a healthcare mandate and flipped on virtually all of the other issues that Romney has.

I love Thomas Sowell, but I'm certainly not going to fall into the trap that someone's actions outside of office don't matter. Even if we ignore Gingrich's marital problems, we still have a man who's private work included endorsing things that I have big problems with.

But even if we just limit it to things that occurred in office, we have someone who created the great Contract with American, then immediately let it fall apart. This is not good enough.

Romney is going to be the next president of the United States. He's the perfect candidate to appeal to the median voter in the Unite States and has been extraordinarily lucky in the primaries not to have to tack to right-wing crazy land to get the nomination. He will ensure that the election is about Obama and his manifest failure--ground that the incumbent cannot win upon.

You won't be pushed around by me, dumbass. You'll be pushed around by a liberal majority in the Supreme Court, by Eric Holder at DoJ, by the EPA, by the NLRB, etc. I'm just laying it out there for you.

No, I can blame you - you're going along with this we-have-our-back-against-the-wall bullshit when we're facing a loser president - or, if it makes you happier, we'll be pushed around by Ann's record of *astute political choices* for 4 more years either way. We can all blame her.

I'm having nothing to do with it - and if the rest of you had any spine, you wouldn't either.

For those of you who refuse because Romney doesn't meet your ideological requirements, fine, deal with the results.

So you really don't trust your fellow Americans, huh? You think that they are stupid enough to re-elect Obama if the Republicans nominate Not-Romney?

Maybe. But if America votes for Obama over Not-Romney, then we deserve what we get. And if Romney gets the nomination because the GOP is too worm-like and spineless to stand by principle, and America votes for Obama-lite Romney, we deserve what we get as well.

So here are my questions. Can anyone who doesn't support Romney in the Republican primary . . .

Yeah, and you can take your questions and shove them up your ass. I'm not obligated to vote for Romney. He does not own my support just because I'm conservative.

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ROMNEY because I have a conscience, because I have principle, because I refuse to set-aside my man-hood and act like a scared little girl in the face of Obama. Because I will do the right thing and the consequences be damned -- you can vote for crap if you want. I won't.

"It takes a lot of guts to diminish the achievements of the former editor of the harvard law review as an affrimative action beneficiary.

But don't let me interrupt your racist rant."

Who published EXACTLY zero law review articles.

And naming facts as facts now qualifies as a "racist rant"? How, exactly, does that work? I mean, here, in the real world. Explain how a fact is now a "racist rant."

You know (care to share with the rest of us?) that Barack Obama didn't benefit from affirmative-action?

Not that you'd care, or would have the good faith to acknowledge, but I will say for the benefit of other readers that the one, single, solitary salutary effect of electing Barack Obama president was that America did elect a black man (I can say that, still?) president.

The tragedy is, of course, it wasn't enough. He was the least qualified man ever elected; you nor anyone can name one man less qualified. The results show themselves.

Tim, I've been begging for a response to those questions all week! All I get is "Oh, Romney's awful and will be the end of the world!", but no one will say any plausible better alternative, unless they're supporting Gingrich (all of Romney's negatives, plus more) or Paul (no explanation needed).

Do any of you study history? Everything that was said about McCain, is now said about Gingrich, and was also said about U.S. Grant could be said about a lot of other great men - but THAT'S the point:

No, I can blame you - you're going along with this we-have-our-back-against-the-wall bullshit when we're facing a loser president - or, if it makes you happier, we'll be pushed around by Ann's record of *astute political choices* for 4 more years either way. We can all blame her.

You sure acribe a lot of power to Althouse, eh? How about addressing the fact that Romney, however conservative-lite he is, will likely not break up a corp and give half of it to union cronies? Or that he's unlikely to put a Sotomayor Mk2 on the court? Or that he's unlikely to push for gun bans? Or push class warfare? Shall we go on?

I have no qualms with anyone supporting the candidate of his or her choice in the primaries. But if Romney ends up being the nominee, the choice will be between him and four more years of Obama. That's not a clear enough choice?

It reminds me of all the libs who went the purity route and voted for Nader. Great job!

Fine. Name him or her, and explain, in some real-world detail, how that person gets the nomination, how they're qualified for office, and how they get swing voters who voted for Obama in battleground states to win those battleground states.

I can't do it.

I'm guessing you can't either.

I told you - just pick a conservative. You've only got to come to grips with one reality (and you know I love reality):

Rasmussen? Next to Frank Luntz, he's the least reliable, conservative pollster in existence. Why bother treating his polls with any seriousness? Even if you're conservative, wouldn't you want your polls less biased, so your hopes and expectations for a Republican in the White House aren't unnecessarily high? Why not just start citing World Net Daily polls?

Can anyone who doesn't support Romney in the Republican primary: 1)name one candidate who would be better

All of them, but Gingrich would be best.

2) list three reasons, pointing to previous experience and/or history as to why they would be better than Romney

As Speaker of the House he "changed the center of gravity" in Washington - we wouldn't even be discussing conservatism as a winner without him - and his accomplishments were many and legendary.

3) explain a real-world, realistic scenario as to how and why they capture the nomination instead of Romney

His name's not Obama. Don't let The Matrix fool you - Obama can no more win than Jimmy Carter could.

4) explain a real-world, realistic scenario as to how and why they capture enough swing voters in battleground states, who previously voted for Obama, to win those battleground states and thus the electoral college.

Same reason - it's more of the same or else. See, you think YOU have no choice when, if you stiffen your spine and demand a conservative, it's THEY who have no choice.

That's reality.

BTW - what is being said of Gingrich was also said of Churchill. Many times.

But when faced with danger, they also knew who the man was. Romney's Chamberlain.

So you really don't trust your fellow Americans, huh? You think that they are stupid enough to re-elect Obama if the Republicans nominate Not-Romney?

Reading comprehension's not really your thing, eh? I didn't say anything about the electability of other candidates. I'm addressing the people who threaten to abstain if Romney is the nominee.

And to be honest, I don't think Obama is dead in the water. The guy sucks as President, but he campaigns well and has a huge, well-funded and well-organized machine. And he still has huge captive constituencies on the Left. Labor, minorities, etc., they will go to the mat for Obama because he is their golden goose.

Any conservative who thinks this is a done deal is deluding himself. This will be a knife-fight to the end.

Crack, thank you for your response. But you can't seriously believe that Gingrich is any more conservative than Romney, can you? He's supported a healthcare mandate and flipped on virtually all of the other issues that Romney has.

Except for being a conservative. Romney has been a conservative, a moderate, and a progressive - and he's governed like it, too. Newt's fucked up, but we've never doubted his bonafides. That's what matters.

And McCain wasn't running against an incumbent although he did have all the baggage of cheney/bush. Indeed, McCain ended up running against Barack Hussein Obama, an bi-racial, African/American Muslim born in Kenya.

Of course mittens will be running against an incumbent. Althouse's love crush on mittens aside, Oct. 2012 polls will probably be more accurate than conservative, agenda-ridden Rasmussen, eh.

Another point of reference ~ Dukakis was (17) pts. ahead of Bush41 after the 1988 Dem convention ~ he lost by (8) pts.

hmm, another liberal governor from MA :-P that's the ticket!

but, but, but keep hope alive Reps as RINO, flip/flopping king mittens may lead you to the promised land ...

IC on voting to reduce gov't bloat.....yes, I agree with you. How the hell would a Republican win (President and in congress) running on the specifics of reducing spending? Its impossible. Hence we are screwed.

Well, Crack, I'm sorry to have hurt you. But I don't ask and never have asked that any presidential candidate be "normal", I asked that they be a) competent, and b) have as close to the correct values as possible.

Newt fails at competence in a pretty spectacular way, and comes no closer than Romney at the values test. The fact that people are swayed that he is somehow in any way better than Romney shows that they are simply not thinking, and falling for pretty words and empty promises just as hard and just as foolishly as people like Professor A fell for Obama.

(Also, Grant may have been a great general and a great man, but he was a pretty lousy president. His competence, like Gingrich's, was limited. Weird comparison.)

After the primary, if you vote for the Republican nominee then you are responsible if he wins. If you don't then you are responsible for 4 more years of Obama.

It's simply stupid to bitch that the GOP guy isn't good enough and then help the only guy who's worse get elected.

There is no third way, no choice that lets you off the hook, so don't hide behind principle, because that move proves you don't have one that's compatible with democracy. After the primary, you don't count. It's like giving up the war, because you lost a battle. Thanks for nothing.

Obama may be a complete failure, but he will still have a press 90% in his corner, and a sea of idiots that will vote for him even if he got caught screwing a goat. Even a weak Obama is a strong Obama, and I don't want me no more Obama. The country is too much at risk for that. No matter what I have to swallow to prevent it, I will. That's principle.

Kansas City said..."I think a 6 point lead seems about right and, unless Obama is very successful in tearing Romney down, I think it will grow during the course of the years and wind up at about a 55/45 Romney victory."

Prediction: Romney will be reelected in 2016 with 58.8% to Joe Biden's 40.6%.

If Obama get's Hillary on the ticket it's gonna take everything available to beat him, including every independent with a fence post up his ass, and every nose-holding true conservative or libertarian possible.

Did Romney get the same sort of crazy trash treatment that the other conservative candidates got in the run-up to the primaries? I sense not. He was the presumed frontrunner simply by holding steady with the establishment crowd percentage. And he wasn't even the actual frontrunner a lot of the time. He was so under the radar. OTOH, he's run before and everyone who cares to know already knows his record, the strengths and weaknesses. The problem is all the people who do not and only pick up on the screech du moment (Cain is womanizer weird, Gingrich is conceited weird, Santorum is religious weird, Perry is stupid weird, Bachmann is hysterical weird, Paul is weird weird). Get ready to hear about how Mormons are such a bunch of horrible racist weirdos.

I've been on this blog long enough to see how things work - there's a LOT of clit sucking that goes on around here. Oh, Ann's so great - she's a liberal arguing the conservative position to the point libs can't see through her! How impressive.

And how many people read this blog? Or do you think it's "just us folks"? Get a clue - the woman's been asked to be on FOX, and Bloggingheads, and radio, and on and on. Game recognize game.

How about addressing the fact that Romney, however conservative-lite he is, will likely not break up a corp and give half of it to union cronies? Or that he's unlikely to put a Sotomayor Mk2 on the court? Or that he's unlikely to push for gun bans? Or push class warfare? Shall we go on?

Bullshit - he's as likely to do anything as any politician (Did you somehow forget that's what we're talking about? Even with the Mormon Fucking Church behind him?) and, if stuff like cultural warfare bothers you, then shut up and get out of politics. I want Newt, specifically, because I know the liberals are out there and he'll stare them down, not go for appeasement. Romney will keep the nightmare going simply for peace. Fuck that - give me a conservative.

I have no qualms with anyone supporting the candidate of his or her choice in the primaries. But if Romney ends up being the nominee, the choice will be between him and four more years of Obama. That's not a clear enough choice?

I saw this act before - Obama had oprah, this asshole's got Joseph Smith And His Magic Plates From The Angel Moroni - AND ALL THEIR FRIENDS WHO'D LOVE TO TALK TO YOU ON ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY,THURSDAY, FRIDAY, OR SATURDAY AT YOUR CONVENIENCE WITH A BIG FROZEN SMILE PLASTERED ON THEIR FACES.

Oh, just like blacks celebrated "getting one over on the man" when Obama (and O.J.) won, you ain't seen shit until you let the Mormons loose. Are any of you considering that at all? or is it just normal "appearances" that matter to you?

Are you really that shallow?

Give me somebody - ANYBODY - with one foot in reality.

That's all I ask.

It reminds me of all the libs who went the purity route and voted for Nader. Great job!

Actually Terry, the economy was still tanking when Obama took over and usually the incoming president starts taking credit for the economy in his second year after the incumbent's policyies have been implemented.

That said, Obama's the president and the buck stops w/him. But it is interesting the last economic poll re: Bush/Obama still had Bush more responsible than Obama. And Obama still leads the Rep party as to who would be better at ecomomic recovery.

As always, it will come down to $$$, messaging, the power/advantages of incumbency and how mittens, who is totally uncomfortable in his own skin, performs in the debate.

Another point of reference ~ Ted Kennedy annihilated mittens in the debates, when he ran for the senate in '94.

The only dirt there is on Romney is the stuff that will convince some of you conservative suckers to not vote. Obama is counting on YOU to not vote and they will be doing a lot of talking to you! Don't be a sucker.

Since Romneycare began in Massachusetts in 2006, health care costs have risen at an annual average rate of 30% and per capita health care spending is now highest in the nation by 27% according to the WSJ.

A study published in the Boston Herald indicates that 18,000 jobs have been lost as a result of MassCare.

Gingrich may have said that he favored universal care, but Romney actually did the deed and the next step in the Bay state is health care price controls.

Bullshit - he's as likely to do anything as any politician (Did you somehow forget that's what we're talking about? Even with the Mormon Fucking Church behind him?) and, if stuff like cultural warfare bothers you, then shut up and get out of politics.

So Gingrich isn't a politician? And are you for fucking real? You think Romney would

*break up GM and give half of it to UAW? *stop Boeing from opening a plant in SC? *send guns to Mexico so he can ramp up gun control in the US?*call for class warfare?

If you really think Romney will go down that road, you need to quit smoking crack.

Fine, support Newt--I'm with you there. But I'm addressing the possibility that Romney wins the nomination. At that point you have to decide between him and Obama, and Romney > Obama no matter how you look at it.

Bullshit. You're buying a mediated lie. The man has nothing to run on and blacks have been hurt more than anyone else by his policies.

The man will have a billion dollars and a ruthless 50-state election machine run out of Chicago, the MSM, the unions, the OWS crowd, etc. Good grief, don't let the man's incompetence in office blind you to the fact that he's good at winning elections. There are tons of now-disappointed liberals who will dutifully stand up and vote once the Hope-aria starts up next year.

Newt fails at competence in a pretty spectacular way, and comes no closer than Romney at the values test.

"Newt fails at competence"? Releaving the Dems of control of the House for the first time in 40 years - and basically making conservatism a force to be reckoned with? A balanced budget? Tax cuts? Welfare reform?

Romney has NOTHING to compare with that - NOTHING - and that's not even all of Newt's accomplishments.

So who's imagining things here?

(Also, Grant may have been a great general and a great man, but he was a pretty lousy president.)

I wasn't speaking of him as a president - he was talked into running because he was such a great general. My point is, before he was asked by Lincoln to lead the troops, he was known simply as a drunk.

You have to understand men to judge them. Something, I'm sure, in this environment is made more difficult than ever,...seeing how there are so few around.

I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.

cited from "The Bridge: the life and rise of Barack Obama, by David Remnick. Referenced from page 215.

To claim that Obama has not benefited from affirmative action is to ignore his own statements on the matter.

I wonder how many Iowan evangelicals know that Romney's family is from Mexico, who went there to seek refuge from anti-polygamy laws in the U.S., or that many Mormons believe Quetzalcoatl, the Mayan feathered serpent god, is Jesus. That would be a hell of a question to ask at the debates!

Another point of reference ~ Ted Kennedy annihilated mittens in the debates, when he ran for the senate in '94.

I saw some of those debates on TV. This was Mitt's first big brush with national exposure and it showed. He was more wooden than an entire army of cigar store indians. One good thing I can say about Mitt is that he has progressively gotten better with his public appearances and delivery. When he ran for governor he was 10 times better than he was against Teddy Barmaid Sandwich. It's not natural to him and he's had to work at it.

I forget the final tally in that race, but it was closer than you'd think and Mitt made Teddy campaign for a change. There were a few elections where there was either no challenger or someone so feeble that Ted didn't have to do any campaigning, just make barmaid sandwiches with Chris Dodd.

You have a problem with Romney being a mormon. You've all but said it before. You have a problem that he probably has a year's supply of food in a basement, somewhere. You have a problem with his funny underwear. You have a problem with some of the theology he believes in. This may not be the prime reason you oppose him (he's certainly made policy decisions worth criticizing), but you do have a problem with his religion.

He'll still get well over 90% of them. They just won't blame him for any of it. Nothing is stronger than race, for the majority of Blacks, and you know it.

I know, but both my friends and family are demoralized. I'm talking about going from In-My-Face laughter to asking what I think of the conservative candidates. One guy said, just two days ago, that Obama had "made us all look bad."

There are tons of now-disappointed liberals who will dutifully stand up and vote once the Hope-aria starts up next year.

Unless it's obvious to them they're facing a stiff conservative wind - which you won't get with Mitt. I am the base and I can't do it. I will not stand and applaud this asshole alongside Ann and Colin Powell - I won't do it. If "saving the country" means letting them have their way then it's no better than the remedies proposed for "saving the planet." I say, let Babylon fall:

At least, then, they'll be the ones forced to shut up for a change,...

"As long as he has a Republican (and more Conservative than now) Congress, that may be enough."

Enough to do what? Delay the entitlement crash by a few months. Exciting stuff, huh?

Seriously, I'll vote for anyone but Obama but we're well past the point where short-term competence is sufficient. We need a fundamental realignment of our financial future or we'll be sailing headlong into the Aegean Sea. Whether the deck chairs are reupholstered in blue suede or red leather during the cruise is immaterial if no one spins the wheel on the bridge and points us to safer waters.

"I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ROMNEY because I have a conscience, because I have principle, because I refuse to set-aside my man-hood and act like a scared little girl in the face of Obama. Because I will do the right thing and the consequences be damned -- you can vote for crap if you want. I won't."

Bender, get over yourself.

Your principles aren't any greater than mine, nor is your manhood.

I will do the right thing and vote for the Republican nominee, whomever it might be, because Obama has to go.

Obama doesn't scare me - it's our idiot fellow Americans who voted for him in the first place who scare me. I'm betting they aren't smart enough to learn from experience.

I hope I'm wrong.

Otherwise, you can shove your inflated sense of self up your own ass - and even at that, I'm sure it's small enough you won't feel a thing.

I agree with Crack Emcee in that Gingrich was the last GOPer with a legislative agenda (Contract with America) that espoused conservative values and I don't think his personal issues should trump this. But I would clearly vote for Mitt if it means not having Obama remain in office to screw up the economy even more with his handling of EPA, NRLB, foreign policy and crony capitalist rewards for supporters.

My good man, Babylon's been falling -- hard -- for quite some time now . . . and people still haven't learned the lesson.

We haven't hit rock bottom yet, but apparently that is what needs to happen before they wise up. Then again, folks may never learn -- we might be like Detroit manifested on a nationwide scale, just keep on voting for the same scamsters no matter how hellish they make things.

At least, then, they'll be the ones forced to shut up for a change,...

I've learned over the years that this is just wishful thinking. The Left can fail over and over and over again, but they'll always claim that it will work next time... if only you give them more money and power. (e.g. the stimulus).

And a good 50% of the country will believe them, over and over and over again. Babylon will fall and the Left will claim it's a failure of market capitalism and the lack of socialist redistribution.

For those of you who refuse because Romney doesn't meet your ideological requirements, fine, deal with the results. If Romney is the nominee and you don't vote for him, you are objectively supporting Obama. That's it. Abstention is as good as a vote for the other side.

Fine with me. Why the fuck should I be pushed around by the likes of you fucks again? You don't give a damn. ==================What a tool! Crack is one of the "Don't blame me...I didn't bother to vote/did a write-in for Mickey Mouse" sort. Crack is right that few if any care..but that is because he is a tool.

You've all but said it before. You have a problem that he probably has a year's supply of food in a basement, somewhere.

No - I was explaining there's more to Mormonism than what the facade leads one to believe. Most will see food storage and ignorantly see pragmatism alone. Those who are aware and intimate with the history and belief system will also see *extreme* paranoia.

Explaining that is not condemnation.

You have a problem with his funny underwear.

Would you accept me as being straight with you if you discovered I wore women's underwear? Wouldn't you think there was something wrong with me, considering all the macho shit? Well, how "normal" is Mittens, considering?

You have a problem with some of the theology he believes in.

Joseph Smith was a fraud born in the modern world. If I can say it about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology - and others accept it - then what's wrong with saying it about Mitt's bullshit?

This may not be the prime reason you oppose him (he's certainly made policy decisions worth criticizing), but you do have a problem with his religion.

Not exclusively. You and I just got into it about his beliefs and now you've decided that's enough to stereotype my feelings - a belief, BTW, you were born into and used to be a member of.

Why don't you tell everyone why you got out, if it's of so little concern when picking a president?

I say, since most people are ignorant of Mormonism, you and I should make sure EVERYBODY knows what we're getting ourselves in for, don't you?

Again, for those thinking it's better to abstain than vote for Romney in the general:

1) Supreme Court picks.2) NLRB.3) DoJ.4) EPA.

There is a shit-ton that a President can do without Congressional approval or legislation. Yes, Obama will need Senate confirmation for the SupCt, but all his picks will most undoubtedly be anti-Heller, anti-Citizens United, and the Senate will have to confirm somebody.

Babylon may fall regardless, but I'd rather I still have the right to bear arms when it crumbles.

"You imply that without affirmative action, he would not have succeeded.

You don't get to be editor (in chief!) of the harvard law review through AA."

Imply?

How discerning of you.

Let me make it clear then.

Without affirmative action, Barack Obama would never have been admitted to Occidental, Columbia, or Harvard Law, let alone made editor of the Harvard Law Review.

There is no evidence (nor any legal scholarship, even as a law professor), that he would have accomplished anything like he has without affirmative action.

There is nothing you can point to in which affirmative action did not set the table for the rest of his professional life. It is the central fact of his professional life.

Sadly, this is the cancer of affirmative action. For all we can suppose, he and other beneficiaries of affirmative action would have accomplished everything, maybe more, had not affirmative action been in play.

But it was, and is, and so it is impossible to separate his accomplishments, and others, from that central fact.

Garage. Quetzalcoatl had nothing to do with the Mayans. You might try reading what you link.

You might try it. I don't know how you could have missed it. Here is some further reading from a Mormon scholar. "Quetzalcoatl, the Maya Maize God, and Jesus Christ". Obama's religion was certainly a topic of great interest to the media in the last election, I suspect Romney's will be as well.

There have been controlled experiments where an African/American kid basically grew up w/all the basic advantages of a middle class family and turned out to be quite intelligent and successful. But again, in the real world getting rid of the root cause for everyone is impossible.

>

Michael

Obama grew up w/out a father, w/a nomadic mother who was temporarily on food stamps, lived in Jakarta from 6-10, then w/his grandparents until he finished high school.

Quite the joy ride!

Whereas Bush43 is the perfect example of the Peter Principle, you rise to your level of incompetence.

But I will agree Obama was born under a lucky star, divine intervention if you will. As D.L. Hughley mentioned early 2008, Bush has screwed up soooo bad, America may elect a Black man president!

I grew up in a town with a large Mormon population. Sure, they're "weird," if you consider nice, family-oriented, healthy-living, generous people "weird." Aside from those fundamentalist extremists, they walk the walk and talk the talk. Way less scary than "liberation theology."

And as an atheist I find Mormonism no stranger than other religious beliefs. All require fantastic levels of suspension of disbelief. Yeah, Joseph Smith and the gold plates and the angel Moroni? Is that much weirder than the burning bush or Jesus being resurrected? Or Buddha reaching enlightenment under a sacred tree?

Again, for those thinking it's better to abstain than vote for Romney in the general:

1) The RINOs would rather switch than fight - and think they can force you to do the same when there's no threat of losing - fuck that: a man of convictions never stands with cowards.2) If the country falls, we might get a Civil War and the opportunity to solve this shit once and for all.3) They're choosing Romney over those of us who have ALWAYS put the country first - why assist them?4) "Extremism in defense of liberty,..."

The root problem with African Americans today isn't racism. The root problem is of their own making.Jews, Vietnamese, Irish, and other ethnicities have had to deal with racism and risen above it. Yes, blacks had formal racism. That's gone now. And they're worse off now.

And I call BS on your 'controlled' experiments. Those would NEVER get past an IRB.

I don't care about Romney's looks, his marriage, his religion - I care we get a conservative in office who will do what needs to be done.

(emphasis added)

I didn't realize that you'd be contradicting yourself so quickly. I would have expected you to hold this position for at least one day.

Geoff, you are proving one reason why I find the belief system dangerous - you are insisting on stereotyping after I admitted Mormonism is one "big" reason why I oppose Romney.

No - compared to the country's need for a true conservative in office, Romney's beliefs mean nothing to me. They clearly mean something to you. Obviously a lot, for someone who's out of the fold now. Again:

Tell us why you got out of this magnificent "religion," that you think is good enough for your family and the nation, but not for you?

It sounds like we have more than a few folks on here who will be voting "Present" when it comes to the general election, in which case you will be stuck with the guy who has voted "present" throughout his political career.

Cracky - "Joseph Smith was a fraud born in the modern world. If I can say it about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology - and others accept it - then what's wrong with saying it about Mitt's bullshit?"

=============Nothing. Be as bigoted as you want about any religion or ideology.To me, Mohammed was a fraud, the Jews filled the Old Testament with fanciful fairy tales, Voodoo economics is that, the Sacred Parchment of America's Holy Founders is archaic and in sore need of a revision. Christian fundies that embrace Zionism and reject evolution are an embarassment.But I would vote for a Jew like Disraeli, a Muslim like Kemal Attaturk. A person that is a Neocon but who has other redeeming traits. A "venerator" of the Sacred Parchment..provided they have lots more positives.

Again, for those thinking it's better to abstain than vote for Romney in the general:

1) The RINOs would rather switch than fight - and think they can force you to do the same when there's no threat of losing - fuck that: a man of convictions never stands with cowards.2) If the country falls, we might get a Civil War and the opportunity to solve this shit once and for all.3) They're choosing Romney over those of us who have ALWAYS put the country first - why assist them?4) "Extremism in defense of liberty,..."

Ah, yes, the RINO-talk. The old "I'm the REAL deal and you're an apostate." Lovely.

Hate to break it to you, but "Republican" is just a label on a big-tent party that stretches from Maine to Hawaii and covers a huge diversity of opinions when it comes to social, economic, and foreign policy. The only thing that binds us all together is that for the most part we lean more right than left.

Seriously, fuck that noise about RINOs. This puritanism is getting ridiculous. I was no fan of how W turned out, but if I had to choose again, W vs. Gore? W vs. Kerry? 1000 out of 1000 I choose W. Romney vs. Obama? And you choose to abstain? Seriously? That's not realist politics or principled politics--that's taking your ball home and crying like a baby. If you're an adult and a citizen, you have to make choices (and there's never a perfect choice).

Blacks will always be Black, whereas Jews, Vietnamese, Irish, and most other ethnicities will never be Black.

btw, comparing Blacks to the Irish is absurd.

And yes, we'll never agree on this subject. Much like conservatives and liberals disagree on most subjects also.

This question has been asked at a few political blogs. Why does one become a liberal as opposed to a conservative? One hoity-toity, clueless conservative at 538.com answered ~ Because I was raised by two loving parents and given a top-notch quality college education yada yada yada.

Yeah, Joseph Smith and the gold plates and the angel Moroni? Is that much weirder than the burning bush or Jesus being resurrected? Or Buddha reaching enlightenment under a sacred tree?

Yes. One way is the fact that Joseph Smith was born in 1805 - he was a modern man in the modern age. There is nothing he did or said that can't be debunked by a simple Google search, but I'm supposed to understand Romney is normal, competent, and honest, etc., while buying into and promoting such obviously fraudulent bullshit?

Come on - the illiterate desert religions at least have that distance going for them,...Mormons have no excuse but deliberate, self-induced, ignorance and stupidity.

And that's a psychological phenomena that's scary - and which plays itself out in many, many bizarre ways.

================A common misimpression. Obama was just the "President" of the Law Review...an honorific symbolic title about as meaningful as President, French Club.

No work needed, unlike being an editor....and he apparantly ducked even being a contributor to the law review. Calculating correctly that they wouldn't get rid of him for a student that did want to contribute articles.

Of course, Obama did manage to pass the Bar on his first try. Unlike his affirmative action wife who failed the Bar exam twice after graduating from Harvard Law and had a very brief legal career before dropping her license and taking a "diversity queen" sinecure at U of Chicago thanks to Baracks 3 billionaire family mentors. (Crowns, Pritzkers, Klutzniks)

Seriously, fuck that noise about RINOs. This puritanism is getting ridiculous.

No - what's ridiculous is those of you who think conservatives are playing. We're not like you. This ain't no game.

I was no fan of how W turned out, but if I had to choose again, W vs. Gore? W vs. Kerry? 1000 out of 1000 I choose W.

I was happy with everything GeorgieBoy did - hated the way the rest of you treated him by buying media lies - just as you're buying into their bullshit now. "Oh, we have to pick Romney because Obama's done so much to run on!" Give me a break - you're a bunch of tools.

Romney vs. Obama? And you choose to abstain? Seriously? That's not realist politics or principled politics--that's taking your ball home and crying like a baby. If you're an adult and a citizen, you have to make choices (and there's never a perfect choice).

I repeat: you did this once already. I proudly voted for McCain and discovered I was almost standing alone. And, ever since then, I've had to listen to what a lousy president he WOULD'VE BEEN while Ann laments what a lousy president Obama is - and nobody really says shit to her or anyone else for putting him there. Fuck that - I want nothing to do with any of it:

Blue@9 - Ah, yes, the RINO-talk. The old "I'm the REAL deal and you're an apostate." Lovely.

Hate to break it to you, but "Republican" is just a label on a big-tent party that stretches from Maine to Hawaii and covers a huge diversity of opinions when it comes to social, economic, and foreign policy.====================The Republicans have been around since the Civil War. They were typically more capitalist and more moderate than Democrats. The people screaming RINO!!, tend to be former Democrats with roots in the South and plenty of ancestors in the KKK and John Birch society.Many have sentiments similar to the "no nothing" democrats as well - people who don't like new things, big on jingoism and crony capitalism, and who wear their ignorance on a variety of things as a badge of authenticity.

Yes. One way is the fact that Joseph Smith was born in 1805 - he was a modern man in the modern age. There is nothing he did or said that can't be debunked by a simple Google search, but I'm supposed to understand Romney is normal, competent, and honest, etc., while buying into and promoting such obviously fraudulent bullshit?

1805 was the modern age? 20 years after the American Revolution? Have you ever heard of the great awakenings? And what difference does it make? His claims about divine inspiration were no weirder than Moses' or Jesus' or Mohammed's. Modern Jews and Christians can also do a Google search about burning bushes that talk, and yet people still continue to believe in Judaism and Christianity.

Come on - the illiterate desert religions at least have that distance going for them,...Mormons have no excuse but deliberate, self-induced, ignorance and stupidity.

Are you telling me that the current Christians and Jews are all illiterate desert-wanderers? Or that they're unable to search the internet for confirmed instances of resurrections and miracles?

Apparently, if a modern person believes in the miraculous claims of illiterate desert madmen from thousands of years ago, that's perfectly normal, whereas it's absolutely beyond the pale to believe in the miraculous claims of an American in "the modern age."

One and only one Catholic has been elected president, soooo is America ready for mittens er a Mormon?

>

GM, I became a liberal independent probably because of Nixon. Sen. Webb of VA was asked why he became a Dem and he said Dems care more about "we the people".

Was in the navy and you become very nationalistic when you join the military, but it had no effect on my political ideology. btw, Reagan was my C-in-C for (8) years ~ no biggie, I survived ;) just like I survived 5.5 years of Nixon and (8) years of Bush43.

No - what's ridiculous is those of you who think conservatives are playing. We're not like you. This ain't no game.

There you go again. Big puffery. Big me me me talk. Big not like you talk.

Except that I am a conservative. I'm just not a conservative who wants to stand at a gate and turn away people who don't agree with me on every issue.

If there are voters out there who are on the fence or "centrist" or even liberal but lean conservative on some issues, I'd rather they vote Republican. And I'll do my best to convince them, rather than slagging them off as RINOs or 'not pure enough.'

Because in the end, politics is about the current condition and trying to improve it--it's not about some magical endstate utopia where the truth shines through and everyone recognizes it. Even if you do think that's the goal, the only way to get there is through incremental progress, not by waiting for the perfect messiah to magically take us there.

I see the Dem's claiming to care more about 'we the people', but the results don't pan out.

I've sometimes observed that Republicans believe in math, while democrats are agnostic.

I've not been enthused about Mitt because I'd prefer someone who was more conservative. I've also consciously tried to be objective with him because of our shared religious beliefs. So I'm not going to sing his praises. Whether America is ready for a Mormon president? I don't care. I've got freedom of religion, I've got the protection of law. I don't need acceptance or approval of my beliefs.

I was happy with everything GeorgieBoy did - hated the way the rest of you treated him by buying media lies - just as you're buying into their bullshit now.

You're terrible at this. You call yourself a conservative but you're "happy with everything GeorgieBoy did"? Can you really say that with a straight face? I'm calling you out as a dumbass or a liar if you say 'yes'.

"Oh, we have to pick Romney because Obama's done so much to run on!" Give me a break - you're a bunch of tools.

Shush now. How many fake arguments and straw-men can you pack in there?

As far as my relationship with the LDS church, I haven't commented on it here, but since you ask, I'm a practicing member of the Mormon Church. You must have me confused with someone else.

Yes, I did. I just checked. My apologies.

As far as stereotyping, I'm doing no such thing. I'm just holding you to what you've written.

Maybe you don't know what stereotyping means.

Yes, I am quite aware of what it means, and you're doing it. I have not hidden my disdain for Mormonism but you seem to want to portray me as a one issue person on the subject. I mean, if you've read my writing on Althouse about Mormons then you must have also read when I praised them, no? If so, then why don't you bring it up? Because it doesn't fit the narrative you're attempting to weave about who I am and what I feel.

I am an anti-cultist. My feelings about all cults are more complex than any believer can comprehend because believing is simple-mindedness. You merely stop thinking. Put those pesky facts away and let your "faith' do the rest.

I wish I had it so easy.

But no. I not only have to deal with your tightly-interwoven mind games, and the awful things you do to each other, but the fact you're real live human beings either so brainwashed, or so gullible, or so cowed, or so stupid, they'll not only fall for such tripe but dedicate their lives to it - and persecute others (or destroy them) in it's name. And many of them I like!! THAT's troubling.

So yes, Geoff, you are stereotyping:

There's waaay more to my investigations than meet the eye - and it would be wrong to say I stand against Romney merely because he's a Mormon.

I stand against him, mostly, because he's the living definition of a RINO.

I've shown that in this thread, you at one point said that you didn't care about Romney's faith, and then, at another, that you did. You contradicted yourself. I've not lumped you into any group (necessary for stereotyping). I've simply pointed out your contradiction.

Shiloh. Obama's early childhood and the ramblings of his mother are doubtless causes for our president's lack of enthusiasm for lots of American ideas. But the hard fact is that he went to the single most exclusive prep school in Hawaii and duplicated that exclusivity at every school he attended thereafter. His silver spoon was inserted later than most but you can be sure he had one

Or perhaps we could imagine, for imagine we would have to, the numerous dirty jobs he had to endure to put himself through these ivy covered gates.

I have a better idea. Lets focus on righting the economic ship first with some competent economic leadership.

---------------

This.

Within the next decade, this country is going to be FORCED to deal with the debt and entitlement programs. And we need strong fiscal leaders who are willing to take care of the mess.

We're reaching the brick-wall dead end, and the fiscal can cannot be kicked down the road much more. Now is the time to start laying the groundwork to actually fixing the economic problems this country has. And it starts by getting our current idiot president out of office and putting a president in that will actually care about the economy again.

His claims about divine inspiration were no weirder than Moses' or Jesus' or Mohammed's.

Yes they were. (All you're showing me is how little you understand Mormonism) First, Joseph Smith couldn't read, so he had to dictate his scam to a gullible jackass - and it shows. The Book of Mormon is a cobbling together of the great religion's nonsense, but is composed like it was put together with duct tape, because it practically was. There's no great insight to it, or original thought, beyond the self-flattery that you're special for doing as it says, along with more recent NewAge type "celestial" crap-o-la. It's really different in what a simple-minded let-down it is to absorb. I found NewAge much more powerful.

Are you telling me that the current Christians and Jews are all illiterate desert-wanderers? Or that they're unable to search the internet for confirmed instances of resurrections and miracles?

No, I'm telling you thousands of years of indoctrination is much harder to shake off than some bullshit that happened, like, yesterday and involved a friend of yours that you know is full of shit.

Apparently, if a modern person believes in the miraculous claims of illiterate desert madmen from thousands of years ago, that's perfectly normal, whereas it's absolutely beyond the pale to believe in the miraculous claims of an American in "the modern age."

No - neither is normal - which is why I said I want the candidate with at least one foot in reality.

You're terrible at this. You call yourself a conservative but you're "happy with everything GeorgieBoy did"? Can you really say that with a straight face? I'm calling you out as a dumbass or a liar if you say 'yes'.

Yes - emphatically. I don't buy the media manipulations like the rest of you did. Bush had to stand alone because, just as you're worried about what people will think if you go full-conservative now, you were worried then as well. I saw it and stayed disgusted. With the Right and the Left. You pick on W. because his last name's "Bush" and Bush's are too classy to seriously fight back. It strikes them as undignified to be American royalty and arguing with their own people - so everybody takes shots at them to make themselves feel big.

Well, to me, they just got smaller every day.

"Oh, we have to pick Romney because Obama's done so much to run on!" Give me a break - you're a bunch of tools.

Shush now. How many fake arguments and straw-men can you pack in there?

Strawman, my ass. What's the rationale for picking Romney? He's THE ONLY ONE who can beat Jimmy Carter II? Please. The whole premise is a media lie.

Obama CAN'T win now - he's finished - so conservatives can pick who they want, forcing the electorate to come with us. All we have to be is resolute in our actions.

Yeah, heard he was put on a cross or something. The book became a best-seller.

Yes they were. (All you're showing me is how little you understand Mormonism) First, Joseph Smith couldn't read, so he had to dictate his scam to a gullible jackass - and it shows. The Book of Mormon is a cobbling together of the great religion's nonsense, but is composed like it was put together with duct tape, because it practically was. There's no great insight to it, or original thought, beyond the self-flattery that you're special for doing as it says, along with more recent NewAge type "celestial" crap-o-la.

I know the Mormon story pretty well, thanks. It's actually little different than how the Quran was written. And the current Bible was cobbled together from myriad sources--no coherent narrative there. Moses came down with those miraculously inscribed tablets--but sorry they were destroyed so no evidence. And hey, the gold plates disappeared too once Smith was finished. What a coincidence.

No, I'm telling you thousands of years of indoctrination is much harder to shake off than some bullshit that happened, like, yesterday and involved a friend of yours that you know is full of shit.

No living Christian or Jew was indoctrinated thousands of years ago. Anyone born into a religion was indoctrinated just the same as Romney. All you're saying is "It's more believable because it's older," but even I don't think you believe that bullshit.

The root problem with African Americans today isn't racism. The root problem is of their own making.Jews, Vietnamese, Irish, and other ethnicities have had to deal with racism and risen above it. Yes, blacks had formal racism. That's gone now. And they're worse off now.

No wonder you're a Mormon - you don't understand anything. Look at those other groups you listed:

Can you name one that has the blood of it's oppressor running through the entire population?

You should leave blacks out of your mouth because - by your "prophets" not considering us as real people until 1978 - you're still a little slow on some aspects of reality.

Yes - emphatically. I don't buy the media manipulations like the rest of you did. Bush had to stand alone because, just as you're worried about what people will think if you go full-conservative now, you were worried then as well. I saw it and stayed disgusted. With the Right and the Left. You pick on W. because his last name's "Bush" and Bush's are too classy to seriously fight back.

The fuck drugs are you on? You were okay with his spending binges? Medicare Part D? Bush didn't go "full conservative." In fact, he ran the other way at points.

But again, nice strawman. I love how you blithely throw me and others into that pit of "you bought the media" and "you pick on Bush" and other shit of that nature. I had criticisms of Bush when he didn't do what I thought he should--I would think that's pretty natural. What's frankly unbelievable is that you liked everything he did. Strange admission for a guy who claims to be more-conservative-than-thou and slags on bootlickers.

Strawman, my ass. What's the rationale for picking Romney? He's THE ONLY ONE who can beat Jimmy Carter II? Please. The whole premise is a media lie.

Point out where I say we must pick Romney over the other candidates. Point out where I say he's the only one who can win.

I've made a very discrete point, which is that if it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, you must vote for Romney. That's it. I've made no claims about Romney vs. Gingrich vs. Perry or anyone else. You're the one stuck in this mess of anyone-but-Romney.

Obama CAN'T win now - he's finished - so conservatives can pick who they want, forcing the electorate to come with us.

You're the fool poking at the snake: "LOOK! HE'S DEAD!" Your cocksuredness about Obama's loss will not serve us well-- unless you're a DNC plant. As I've said before, he's got money and a massive campaign machine. You don't think he'll pull every trick in the book to win this? You think it's just coincidence that OWS will try to muck up the Republican primaries? That Holder is going to sue states that passed Voter ID laws? OPEN YOUR EYES. This will not be a walk in the park--it will be knife fight as every big Democratic special interest stakeholder jumps in to keep the graft flowing.

GM. Quetzalcoatl is not Kukulkan. Aztecs are not Mayans. Even the wiki article you linked makes this clear.

Quetzalcoatl took his place in the Mayan pantheon under the name Kukulcan. Quetzalcoatl is the god behind the Mayan prophecies of 2012. You can easily find out facts like these, and more, with a simple google search taking less than 5 minutes.

Yeah, heard he was put on a cross or something. The book became a best-seller.

Reported the next day? Who was the paper's editor? Jesus, you must think I'm as stupid as you are. Wait - that can't be. Even you can't think anybody else can be this gullible.

I know the Mormon story pretty well, thanks. It's actually little different than how the Quran was written. And the current Bible was cobbled together from myriad sources--no coherent narrative there.

Bullshit again. Neither the writers of the Bible or the Koran got some guy to share a bedroom with them and their wife to take dictation as they ranted like madmen.

Mormonism is totally different.

No living Christian or Jew was indoctrinated thousands of years ago. Anyone born into a religion was indoctrinated just the same as Romney. All you're saying is "It's more believable because it's older," but even I don't think you believe that bullshit.

Jesus, you claim to be an atheist who understands religious shit but you talk like an idiot. I never said a "living Christian or Jew was indoctrinated thousands of years ago." As a matter of fact, that's such a dumb thing to write, I'm going to stop right there.

The fuck drugs are you on? You were okay with his spending binges? Medicare Part D? Bush didn't go "full conservative." In fact, he ran the other way at points.

Fleeing a Democratic Posse, while fighting two wars few gave him any back-up on. To isolate anything is a lie. The Republicans acted like cowards - just as they are now. Yes, I am more-than-happy with everything he did. I am ashamed at the shallowness of his critics on the right and left. But again, nice strawman. I love how you blithely throw me and others into that pit of "you bought the media" and "you pick on Bush" and other shit of that nature. I had criticisms of Bush when he didn't do what I thought he should--I would think that's pretty natural. What's frankly unbelievable is that you liked everything he did. Strange admission for a guy who claims to be more-conservative-than-thou and slags on bootlickers.

I do - you're not saying anything i haven't heard for - what? - the last 10 years? Anything but admit you've got it wrong and are partially to blame for the disaster? (The same charge I throw at Ann now for Obama) You are:

You're cowards, hiding under the banner of pragmatism. Point out where I say we must pick Romney over the other candidates. Point out where I say he's the only one who can win. I've made a very discrete point, which is that if it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, you must vote for Romney. That's it. I've made no claims about Romney vs. Gingrich vs. Perry or anyone else. You're the one stuck in this mess of anyone-but-Romney.

I "must" vote my conscience. I told you - this is not a game. I'll put my country about your bullshit formulations and if that means allowing you to set it alight so you'll understand "fire is hot" then so be it. I will not be cowed into doing as you say, under any circumstances, as long as you're endorsing putting another cipher with a cult behind him in charge of the country. I simply won't do it. You're the fool poking at the snake: "LOOK! HE'S DEAD!" Your cocksuredness about Obama's loss will not serve us well-- unless you're a DNC plant. As I've said before, he's got money and a massive campaign machine. You don't think he'll pull every trick in the book to win this? You think it's just coincidence that OWS will try to muck up the Republican primaries? That Holder is going to sue states that passed Voter ID laws? OPEN YOUR EYES. This will not be a walk in the park--it will be knife fight as every big Democratic special interest stakeholder jumps in to keep the graft flowing.

He is dead. I don't know how many elections you've lived through but I've seen enough to figure things out. He's fallen and he can't get up - the rest is just media hype. I'm more bothered by what you're doing than anything he's DONE at this point. You're determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A vote for either Romney or Obama means this country loses. It's time to stop fucking around and make something real happen.

GM. OK, if you think that the Aztec and Mayan gods share the same name you can have at it. You might amble over to the Archeology dept at your local university and explain that to the resident Mayan expert. You can do that with a simple walk to the university where you will explain how the God "took his place" under a different name in Mayan culture. Do not tell them that you read this sentence from your link: "In the Maya area he was approximately equivalent to Kukulcan and Gukumatz, names that also roughly translate as "feathered serpent" in different Mayan languages."You can explain that the words "approximately equivalent" mean " exactly the same as".

The Mayan experts will then ask if you were educated in Wisconsin public schools.

After reading Crack's posts re: Mormon's having problems w/African/Americans as late as the '60s/'70s and all the other strange cultish comings and goings of Mormonism, me thinks mittens will be answering a myriad of questions in the general campaign re: his religion.

Wisconsin public schools are/were the finest in the nation. The jealousy is unbecoming of a southern gentleman. At any rate, don't take my word for it. Just google it! Let me know what you find. I'm not afraid of being wrong, but from what I read Quetzalcoatl and Kukulcan appear to be the same deity, or man as it may be the case.

Yeah, heard he was put on a cross or something. The book became a best-seller.

Reported the next day? Who was the paper's editor? Jesus, you must think I'm as stupid as you are. Wait - that can't be. Even you can't think anybody else can be this gullible.

So that's the material distinction? It was reported in the paper? Wow. I don't even know how your brain got to this juncture. You made the point that Smith made the papers--presumably arguing that his fraud was known to many even then. But again, how is that different from Jesus? Did people not call Jesus a fraud? Was he not convicted?

Neither the writers of the Bible or the Koran got some guy to share a bedroom with them and their wife to take dictation as they ranted like madmen.

Again, you point to trivial differences as if they're material. Right, Mohammed was an illiterate who heard his shit through an angel. And when it served his purposes, the angel came through with the necessary revisions--you know, so he could marry extra wives or little girls. Gee, who does that sound like? Moses went up and came down with these god-inscribed tablets--which were promptly destroyed so no one ever saw them up close. Gee, who does that sound like?

But sure, Mormonism is crazy unbelievable whereas that other shit was totally on the level.

Jesus, you claim to be an atheist who understands religious shit but you talk like an idiot. I never said a "living Christian or Jew was indoctrinated thousands of years ago." As a matter of fact, that's such a dumb thing to write, I'm going to stop right there.

Can you try to follow your own logic for a second? You're down on Romney because he believes in unbelievable shit--shit about Joseph Smith that he could easily look up on the internet and that any rational person would conclude was bullshit.

I countered that it's no different from any other religion with fantastical shit in the founding story. You responded that it's more understandable coming from illiterate desert wanderers. Now, that may excuse the original people who initially believed in burning bushes and water into wine, but does that excuse any current believer?

If Romney is a fool because he believes in shit that google will quickly reveal as fantastical bullshit, why do current Christians get off the hook? A regular Christian American of Romney's age did not grow up in a desert nor was he indoctrinated at a time when burning bushes could be thought of as normal. These people have grown up in a modern age and they too can google. And yet Romney is crazy and 100+ million Americans are not. Why is that?

You're a retard.

As always, call names when your illogic is exposed. Run and hide, little forrest.

Shiloh. You would be right if we had " reporters" but we do not. They were certainly incurious about Obama's pastor and might not want to go tit for tat on that topic. Though i wish they would bring it up in a debate question. It would be fun to discuss the Mormon's current views on blacks versus the Reverend Wright's contemporary views of whites.

And what kind of shit is that? You're a principled conservative but you're okay with Bush going the other way because it was too scary for him stand up as a conservative? Make up your mind!

I will not be cowed into doing as you say, under any circumstances, as long as you're endorsing putting another cipher with a cult behind him in charge of the country.

Paranoid persecution complex. I'm not cowing you into anything. I'm making arguments and you're flailing away at strawmen.

I've told you straight up that my pro-Romney arguments are limited to a straight up Romney vs. Obama scenario. I'll vote for Newt too if he's up there. Or Perry. Hell, I would even hold my nose and vote for Bachmann.

Um, what? Did the Democrats control Congress before 2006? _____________

Essentially, yes. Bush had to deal with and appease a Senate that was filled with establishment, liberal Republicans, starting with the Maverick, who sought to torpedo anything that Bush did because he had a Capt. Queeg like hate for Bush, and continuing on through a couple dozen other "Republican" senators.

GM. I have spent a bit of time in Quintana Roo and can assure you they have a strong view of the topic. I am perhaps a stickler on subjects i have studied but conflating the two gods, as similar as they might appear, would be like equating Baptists with Catholics, Christmas with Kwanza. Maybe poor examples, but as good as i can do.

You should note as well the times when each culture thrived, with the Maya predating.

As to schools i can assure you that none of my classmates would say "her and me went to the mall yesterday" whereas you probably cannot say the same. Jealous i am not.

There is one person - one - who we KNOW went to Washington and changed it. That is Newt Gingrich.

There is one person - one - who we KNOW went to Washington and had the courage to bend it to his will. That is Newt Gingrich.

There is one person - one - who we KNOW went to Washington and did the things that needed to be done. That is Newt Gingrich.

And you guys are willing to toss him and his accomplishments aside because you don't like the optics? Are you mad?

Fuck that he didn't get everything he set out to do - he was merely Speaker of the House - a position so vulnerable people have spoken of removing the current Speaker because he tears up when emotional. Really? How serious are you?

I will not vote for Mitt Romney. One cipher with a cult behind him is enough for me - I didn't have to vote for the last one and I will not be nudged into voting for this one under any circumstances.

If I vote, it will ONLY be for someone who I am assured has the ability to do what needs to be done, because the fate of the country hangs in the balance whether Obama is beaten or not. I didn't put Obama in office - I voted, proudly, for John McCain. Those who put Obama in office voted for him, or either supported McCain half-heartedly or didn't vote for him at all. Letting you stew in 4 more years of that decision doesn't bother me in the least. I am saying the same thing, now, that I was saying 4 years ago;

You vote for the man with the proven ability to accomplish what needs to be done.

And that is NOT Mitt Romney.

Four years ago this country chose an empty suit over a veteran, a war hero, a patriot, and a Senator of 30 years with a long list of accomplishments. Now you want to choose a man who managed the 2002 Olympics and brought us RomneyCare over the man who gave us the Republican Revolution, The Contract With America, a balanced budget, tax cuts, and, of course, welfare reform,

And - in both cases - your choice has a bunch of "celestial" friends I'd call "dodgey" at best that everybody wants to seriously avoid looking closely at.

Sorry, but I will NOT play this game again. I am voting for a conservative who can get the right things done or none at all. Force me to choose between Obama and Romney and you will have made my choice for me:

Fixednoise er fox news ran a loop of Rev. Wright's god damn America sermon 24/7 for about a month as did conservative talk radio albeit they were preaching to the choir. :D but it was also reported on nightly news, HP, dailykos, cable news for about a month causing Obama to give a speech on race denouncing Wright and letting the chips fall where they may.

Indeed, it was HP which broke the "bitter gate" story. Why, because it was news!

One had to be under a rock not to know about the Rev. Wright affair.

>

Again, it is telling that the one interview mittens gave on friendly fox news he was so uncomfortable it was cringeworthy.

Shiloh. "One had to be under a rock not to know about the Rev. Wright affair."

If you examine the times when it was widely discussed ( which i would argue it was not) you will see that it was weeks after it was being discussed on Fox and then on the internet. At the point it couldnt be ignored it was then treated as old news by the reporters discussing it for the first time. And most voters are, unfortunately for us all, under a rock.

In other words, prior to the Democrat takeover of Congress, it was controlled by Romney Republicans.

Dude, don't try and explain reality to them. They're in The Matrix and the media narrative is all they know. And they'll parrot that shit until the day they die because it flatters them ("Bush is so stupid!") and, because that's so, they have no reason to do what I did and see if they've got the facts straight. They can just keep flapping their jaws, unimpeded, and growing more proud of their ignorance by the day.

That our parents, and schools, have failed us is all I can ultimately think to say.

So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.

FALSANI:Did you actually go up for an altar call?

OBAMA:Yes. Absolutely.

It was a daytime service, during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. Because, it was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.

I certainly would not claim to be an expert in Mayan mythology. If you've spoken directly with the locals in Quintana Roo on this very subject I guess I will have to defer to them. People that have done extensive research on the subject do not seem to have reached a consensus, at least from what I have gathered. Maybe Romney's relatives in Mexico have some further insight.

It is possible that Quetzalcoatl was the same being as Kukulkan but we can be sure that both beings if they were not identical, belonged to the same Sirian -Reptilian faction ( Enki -Horus-Thoth). (The coat of arms of Mexico is of an eagle eating a rattle snake, a symbol which has also been seen in parts of Polynesia).

GM. The Sierra Madre of northern Mexico is where the Romneys lived. The indians of that area would not have heard of the Aztec or Mayan gods nor of the Mayan or Aztecs. Apaches,yes. The local indians would have known the Apaches well.

A good many Mormons still in the area. Many Menonites in the south of Mexico if you get a hankering to wail on them.

If you examine the times when it was widely discussed ( which i would argue it was not) you will see that it was weeks after it was being discussed on Fox and then on the internet. At the point it couldnt be ignored it was then treated as old news by the reporters discussing it for the first time. And most voters are, unfortunately for us all, under a rock.

The media committed so many sins during the 2008 election I could barely eat I was gagging so much. They kept John Edwards' affair quiet for a YEAR because there was a slim possibility he could be VP or Attorney General. The L.A. Times sent a memo to their bloggers telling them, specifically, not to write about it. And only AFTER THE ELECTION WAS OVER did the Washington Post admit conservatives were correct and they'd been slanting their coverage - which, of course, only got coverage in conservative outlets.

I tell you, the American people are being played for fools, and - the worst part is - by letting the media continue to do so, they're living up to the title,...

Bender said...Rather curious that Romney supporters utilize a strategy of trashing and bad mouthing people as a way to solicit votes for Romney.

================No, right wing purity boy. People are just pointing out your adamant insistance that you wouldn't vote for Romney, even if it meant that Obama won by 1 vote - objectively means you are for Obama. I know people that don't like Romney and are sure not flush with money in the Obama economy say that say they will be sending money to the campaign if Romney is nominated and is behind in money in a way they think will hurt his prospects. They just want Obama gone.

If I have a decision I am forced to make, between decision A&B, and decision B will come into effect by default...and decision A is better, you go with it. Even if decision A is not perfect, relies on more "uncertainty trust factors"..you assume worse case on that and again compare it to B, and if decision A is still better after much thought and relooking at your judgement - you go with that. Decision A goes.

It is not the "lesser of two evils" argument and A Bender fearful of responsibility - or so judgmental that any flaw might mar their internal sense of rectitude. And ducking the decision believing doing nothing is acceptable. Because its not like no President gets elected, in the case of that decision.

"Have you seen Romney's slogan that's sure to be on the lips of every American this year? "Believe in America. A nice sentiment but another typically bland offering from Milquetoast Mitt, who promises to be the nourishing gruel on the GOP menu."

As opposed to the substantive slogans that we have always gotten from each candidate in every other Presidential election.

"So long as our guy is better than Hitler (which is all that the "he's better than Obama" argument is), we should rally around him. Doesn't matter that he is complete crap with respect to promoting conservative philosophy and values, at least he's better than Obama.

This is what passes for political analysis these days. No wonder our country is in the toilet."

Right. Your more sophisticated voter will say, sure my choice is Hitler, but I do like his stand on the issues"